Economics Job Market Rumors » The Economics Discipline

Too little money for macro!!!

(54 posts)
  • Started 1 month ago by Anonymous
  • Latest reply from anonymous
  1. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    By V.V.Chari: http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2010/Oversight/20july/Chari_Testimony.pdf

    "...as a society, we have devoted far too little by way of resources to modern macroeconomics. We have too few people working on modern macroeconomics, we have too few students and we devote too little in the way of other resources to this area.
    I would argue that the United States devotes shamefully little to economic research. For example, the NSF’s budget for economics is a pitiful $27 million out of which $2.6 million goes to the worthwhile activity of supporting the Panel Study on Income Dynamics. Twenty …ve million dollars for an activity that is deemed fundamentally important by the people of the United States? Out of that 25 million dollars, my best estimate is that only about 10 per cent goes to macroeconomics. Compare $2.5 million to an overall NSF budget of $6 billion or to the federal government support of basic research of roughly $30 billion."

    Discuss

    Posted 1 month ago #
  2. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    hahahaha...Chari supports DSGEs with their frictionless markets and perfect foresight yet he is implicitly arguing for the spill over/public good feature of macroeconomics. interesting indeed.

    Posted 1 month ago #
  3. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    Too much money from NSF and Fed Minneapolis have already been flowing to Chari's cohort.

    Posted 1 month ago #
  4. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    ^You have comprehension problems. What does one have to do with another? You can have externalities without market failures. And how can one have a Dynamic STOCHASTIC general equilibrium model with perfect foresight? You are seriously retarded and need some remedial help.

    Posted 1 month ago #
  5. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    ^hahaha...yep...they get a big chunk of the Fed grants for useless research.

    Posted 1 month ago #
  6. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    ^ was meant for ^^^, obviously, but ^^ is equally stupid.

    Posted 1 month ago #
  7. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    ^Grr, slow typing. Fuck it, you know which retard I'm speaking to.

    Posted 1 month ago #
  8. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    You have comprehension problems. What does one have to do with another? You can have externalities without market failures. And how can one have a Dynamic STOCHASTIC general equilibrium model with perfect foresight? You are seriously retarded and need some remedial help.
    [[[[[[[[[[[[[

    hahahah...externalities without market failures...hahaha...

    rational expectations ans DSGE...hahaha

    Posted 1 month ago #
  9. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    hahaha...top 10 genius says we can have externalities but no market failure...hahahaha

    Posted 1 month ago #
  10. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    He has a good point, the NSF should break us off a larger chunk if they deem rightly that macro research has more value to society than funding some other fields that I will not mention.

    Posted 1 month ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »